Abstract
Punishment has been a central concern of jurisprudence, reflecting broader debates about morality, justice, and social order. This research examines three interrelated questions: whether Socratic reformative punishment, focused on moral cure, can prevent recidivism in contemporary criminal law, whether Aquinas’ natural law conception of punishment resonates with Roscoe Pound’s sociological theory of social engineering, whether Bentham’s utilitarian principle of “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” can effectively balance deterrence with individual rights in contemporary criminal justice systems. Each of these questions highlights the tension between philosophical ideals and practical realities of justice.
The study traces the historical evolution of punishment theories from the retributive traditions of ancient law to Socratic moral reform, Aquinian natural law, Benthamite utilitarianism, and Pound’s sociological pragmatism. It argues that modern criminal jurisprudence cannot rely on a single theory. While Socratic reform emphasizes rehabilitation, Bentham provides a consequentialist framework, Aquinas offers a moral justification, and Pound integrates law into the broader function of social control. The paper concludes that contemporary criminal justice systems embody a synthesis of these perspectives, seeking to balance deterrence, reformation, retribution, and prevention within the constitutional mandate of human dignity.
Keywords:Punishment, Jurisprudence, Socrates, Aquinas, Bentham, Roscoe Pound, Social Engineering, Utilitarianism, Recidivism.
- Introduction
The theories of punishment deal with deeper questions of morality, justice, and social order, they have long been considered fundamental to jurisprudence. Social welfare, deterrence, prevention, and moral correction have all been used to support punishment, from classical philosophy to modern sociological theory. The present research engages with three key questions situated within this debate: and whether Socratic reformative punishment, rooted in moral cure, can effectively prevent recidivism today, whether Aquinas’ natural law perspective on punishment aligns with the sociological school of jurisprudence, particularly Roscoe Pound’s social engineering; and whether Bentham’s utilitarian principle of “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” can balance deterrence with individual rights in contemporary criminal justice systems.
The conflict between legal pragmatism and moral philosophy is emphasized in each question. As a representative of the classical school of natural law, Socrates highlighted the educational and reformative function of punishment. In the tradition of natural law, Aquinas acknowledged the function of punishment in preserving social harmony while also linking it to divine and moral order. Bentham’s utilitarianism, which served as the analytical school’s foundation, on the other hand, moved the emphasis to consequences and insisted that punishment must maximize the welfare of society. Punishment was later viewed by the sociological school as a means of preserving social equilibrium and balancing conflicting interests in society, especially Roscoe Pound’s theory of social engineering.
This study sets punishment at the connection of social order, individual morality, and collective welfare by contrasting these various approaches. It examines whether the enduring problems of criminal justice, such as recidivism, rights protection, and public safety, can be sufficiently addressed by strictly moral reform, utilitarian deterrence, or sociological balancing. The investigation ultimately emphasizes that punishment, as a legal institution, cannot be reduced into to a single theory but rather needs to be viewed as a dynamic synthesis of sociological, utilitarian, and moral viewpoints.